Support for the axis of evil

Many ordinary Iranians that I talked to during my recent visit to Iran expressed the point of view that all of the US saber rattling and “axis of evil” and “regime change” rhetoric was actually helping to keep the unpopular hard line regime in power. Iranians are very proud of their country with its long history and ancient culture and are very patriotic. Anytime that their country has been threatened they have rallied around their government no matter how unpopular. A good example of this attitude happened in 1980 when Saddaam Hussein’s Iraq, with the support of the US and other western countries, invaded Iran. In 1980, shortly after the Iranian revolution and the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it was not clear which political faction was going to come out on top. The Islamists associated with revolutionary hero Ayatollah Khomeini clearly had the upper hand as they were the best organized, but a number of other factions were jockeying for position. The MEK/MKO, with its odd Marxist/Islamist ideology, the Communists, secularists and monarchists were all players. When Saddaam thought that he could take advantage of this factionalism and take over the Iranian oil fields, Iranians of all stripes rallied to the Islamist government and drove out the invader, albeit at the cost of over a million lives on both sides. This phenomenon has been evident in Iran in the past few years. As the US/Israel have threatened economic and military action against Iran the reformist and moderate hard line groups have been reluctant to speak out against the very hard line regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Opposition leaders have been unwilling to appear unpatriotic and have kept a low profile. The situation appears to have changed somewhat in the past few weeks since the release of the National Intelligence Estimate which downgraded the threat of the Iranian nuclear enrichment program. Most people in the Middle East, whether Arab or Persian, breathed a big sigh of relief and concluded that the US/Israel would not be able to sustain a consensus for attack on Iran. The aggressive rhetoric has subsided somewhat and there are even talks about having talks. This has given the opposition factions space to escalate their criticism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s performance both in foreign affairs and economics. (For an example, click here) Much of this criticism could not have happened without the tacit approval of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamanei. This political space is important since, with parliamentary elections imminent, a start could be made toward the installation of a more moderate regime through the democratic process. (This is my definition of “regime change”) President Ahmadinejad must be saying to himself “Where is George Bush when I need him”? Never fear George is here! The announced primary purpose of his Middle East trip is to insure that everyone in the region understands the “grave threat” of Iran and to rally the “moderate” Arab states in opposition to Iran. The recent altercation between US warships and Iranian patrol boats in the Straits of Hormuz has been another opportunity for “over the top” rhetoric. This altercation has turned into a battle of videos similar to the battle of GPS’s between Iran and the British over the kidnapping, capture, detention or whatever of 15 British sailors and marines last spring. I have looked at both the US and Iranian videos and find the Iranian position that this is a normal course of events in this crowded narrow waterway to be more believable. (You can see the Iranian video here and the US video here and form your own opinion.) It did not appear to rise to the level of a “provocative act” and justify the threat of “serious consequences”. However, with hard liners in charge in both countries, it appears that the two leaders are kindred spirits and need each other’s support to maintain their positions of power.